Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Costs – costs stemming from the determination of property adjustment proceedings – where costs are sought on an indemnity basis.
Dismiss the Application in a Case filed 21 October 2015 together with the Response to Application in a Case filed 14 January 2016.
All outstanding Applications and Responses are withdrawn and dismissed and all issues are removed from the list of matters awaiting hearing.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Baker & Baker is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA
PAC 3859 of 2011
MR BAKER
Applicant
And
MS BAKER
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Issues for Determination
This determination arises from an Application in a Case filed by Mr Baker (the husband). The Application in a Case seeks an Order for the payment of his costs…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Baker and Baker
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Baker and Baker [2016] FCCA 833
Case
[2016] FCCA 833
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Baker and Baker*, heard by Judge Harman, the court was required to consider an Application in a Case filed on 21 October 2015 and a Response to Application filed on 14 January 2016. The precise nature of the dispute between the parties is not detailed, but the proceedings involved multiple outstanding applications and responses that were awaiting hearing.
The central legal issue before the court was the disposition of these numerous applications and responses, and by extension, the overall status of the matter listed for hearing. The court needed to determine whether these matters should proceed, be withdrawn, or be dismissed.
Judge Harman ordered the dismissal of the Application in a Case filed on 21 October 2015 and the Response to Application filed on 14 January 2016. Furthermore, all other outstanding applications and responses were formally withdrawn and dismissed, with all issues consequently removed from the list of matters awaiting hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Dismiss the Application in a Case filed 21 October 2015 together with the Response to Application in a Case filed 14 January 2016.
2.
All outstanding Applications and Responses are withdrawn and dismissed and all issues are removed from the list of matters awaiting hearing.